Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Conservation groups are urging the government to declare the largest underwater canyon on the east coast, described as an underwater Grand Canyon, as Canada's first marine protected area.

Using the powers under the new oceans act, will the minister move swiftly to designate this biologically rich and diverse region as Canada's first protected marine area?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the passage of the oceans act, which concentrated and focused on conservation and the environment, made possible the marine protected areas issue.

To that end and before the passage of the bill, I met with Heritage Canada officials and spent a day with them discussing this issue, along with consultation with many fishermen in eastern Canada.

As a result of that, about a month ago I made an announcement with the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage which allowed for a marine protected area on the east coast of Canada as a test case so that we can develop policy and have a look at the evaluation criteria to make sure this system will work.

I am sure the hon. member would also be interested that with respect to the specific issue of the gully I have been in conversation with the World Wildlife Fund in the last week. I am sure that once the policies are developed we will be looking at this as one of our priority issues.

When the Minister of National Defence tries to justify his decision to put an end to the Somalia inquiry, he always offers the same excuse of its going on too long and costing too much, despite the fact that Madam Justice Sandra Simpson considers that the commissioners have performed their duties with diligence.

Since the commission is now limited to explaining the events preceding the arrival of the Canadian troops in Somalia on January 10, 1993, how will the people of Canada and Quebec know exactly what happened on March 16, 1993, when a young Somali was tortured to death?

Douglas YoungMinister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Speaker, in the decision of the justice of the Federal Court, it was clear that the government was given certain options to ensure that the commissioners were not asked to report on situations they had not examined.

Obviously, it made perfectly good sense not to ask people to report on matters they had no knowledge of. However, the hon. member is no doubt aware that the terms of reference given the commissioners by the government indicate clearly that they are to report on what occurred prior to the incidents in Somalia and on anything else they feel competent to comment on or reach conclusions about.

Mr. Speaker, in limiting the commission's mandate, the minister is very much aware that he is in fact limiting the activities of the inquiry. They will not be in a position to shed any light on such important matters as the disappearance of 60 documents from the archives of the former deputy minister of national defence, Mr. Fowler. That is set aside.

How can the minister continue to defend his decision to limit the inquiry, when we will never know what documents, which were so compromising, the former deputy minister, now ambassador, caused to disappear?

Douglas YoungMinister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Speaker, obviously I have considerable respect for the hon. member, but she has just alleged that a deputy minister committed certain acts.

In my opinion, she should pause to reflect before repeating such allegations outside the Parliament of Canada, because it is a fairly serious allegation to suggest that such an act was committed by a public official who was working at the time under the tutelage of a minister of national defence who subsequently became the Prime Minister of Canada. If the hon. member has knowledge in this regard, I am certain she will want to pursue her allegations outside the House.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ted Weatherill, chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board, charged $21,000 in expenses to the Canadian government for expenses he incurred as a member of a private organization, based in the United States no less.

This was no ordinary travel and entertainment. He spent $733 in Paris for dinner for two. The average family in Canada does not spend that much on groceries in a month.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. When did it become public policy for the taxpayer to foot extravagant travel and entertainment bills for a patronage appointee who is not even travelling on government business?

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the auditor general looks at this expense account and the other expense accounts that we have raised over the years and finds them all at fault. This type of business cannot continue.

We have children going hungry in Canada while Mr. Weatherill and others like him spend. He spent $148,000 on meals over eight years; one person, $148,000. That is disgusting.

Why has the President of the Treasury Board let this abuse continue for the three and a half years that they have been in office? Will he get rid of these types of people who enjoy patronage appointments and abuse the trust they have been given?

If they would listen maybe they would learn something. The problem with Reform members is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. If they would have voted for instead of filibustering Bill C-66, the bill that creates a new labour relations board, we could have dealt with this problem immediately instead of waiting. They cannot have their cake and eat it too.

The American President and the Israeli Prime Minister are meeting today in Washington. They will be discussing ways of salvaging talks with the Palestinians on the last phase of the Oslo accords.

Since Israel is trying to acquire new land by going ahead with Jewish settlements in order to operate from a position of strength in the upcoming negotiations with the Palestinian authority, will the Acting Prime Minister agree that such a strategy will lead to an impasse inhibiting the peace process rather than renewing it?

Don BoudriaMinister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada is indeed in Washington, accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am sure that the member across the way will want to wait until the Washington visit is over in order to be able to evaluate all the issues raised by the Prime Minister.

In Washington, the Prime Minister intends to raise a number of issues with his American counterpart. I am proud he has undertaken this visit. He intends to raise issues having to do with refugees, the Middle East and a number of other matters with his American counterpart.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport cancelled the Pearson airport contract, which would have seen $800 million spent on Pearson airport at no cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

Next, the minister's lawyers testified in a court of law that had the contract proceeded, the contractors would have lost money.

My question is for the minister. Given that he and his new airport authority are spending over $3 billion in legal costs, settlements, rent relief, terminal 3 purchase and the grandiose spending scheme of the new airport authority, can the minister tell the taxpayers of Canada how it is in their interests to spend $3 billion on a project that his department testified in a court of law would have lost money with an expenditure of $800 million?